How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

A quick search reveals that the search engine can find no instance where I ever used the word epicycles...you are a top shelf liar skidmark...top shelf.

No one said you used it.

I used it to mock your ever more complex idiocy.

The only people being mocked here are you guys....making claims that no observed, measured evidence supports...belief in models over reality is reason to be mocked..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.

No toddler...that isn't what I said...I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...there is a difference and you have my sympathy that you are unable to understand it even though it has been explained to you ad nauseam.

Sad that you must resort to claiming that I said something that I didn't in an effort to try and make a point.

I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...

Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
One of your earliest epicycles.

You made the claim...lets see the quote...

Really?

You never said "radiation doesn't move from cool to warm"?

 

[Crick]

You'd think that after more than a year of folks telling him his intelligent photon interpretation was buttfuck crazy, that he might have denied it before now.

 

[SSDD]

You'd think that after more than a year of folks telling him his intelligent photon interpretation was buttfuck crazy, that he might have denied it before now.

Sorry skidmark...assigning intelligence to inanimate entities in order that they may obey the laws of physics belongs entirely to you wack jobs...along with your smart rocks that know which way to fall when dropped..your smart air that knows that it can't rush into a punctured tire and fill it up...and your smart rivers that know that they can't flow up hill...

Me, I think things obey the laws of physics because they must...no intelligence required...a lot like being a liberal..

 

[Crick]

Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes. I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class. Derp derp!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'd think that after more than a year of folks telling him his intelligent photon interpretation was buttfuck crazy, that he might have denied it before now.

Sorry skidmark...assigning intelligence to inanimate entities in order that they may obey the laws of physics belongs entirely to you wack jobs...along with your smart rocks that know which way to fall when dropped..your smart air that knows that it can't rush into a punctured tire and fill it up...and your smart rivers that know that they can't flow up hill...

Me, I think things obey the laws of physics because they must...no intelligence required...a lot like being a liberal..

assigning intelligence to inanimate entities in order that they may obey the laws of physics belongs entirely to you wack jobs.

Intelligence? LOL!

Omniscience.

 

[SSDD]

Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes. I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class. Derp derp!

Funny...running away and calling names over your shoulder as you run....how pathetic is that? You and toddster having a nice little circle jerk there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes. I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class. Derp derp!

Funny...running away and calling names over your shoulder as you run....how pathetic is that? You and toddster having a nice little circle jerk there?

Speaking of running away, you ever say, photons "don't move spontaneously from cool to warm"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes. I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class. Derp derp!

Funny...running away and calling names over your shoulder as you run....how pathetic is that? You and toddster having a nice little circle jerk there?

And there you go.....running away.

 

[Wuwei]

I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...

Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
One of your earliest epicycles.

You made the claim...lets see the quote...

Here is a conversation where you say radiation from cold matter is restricted from hitting warmer matter

You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.

Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

Again...I am not interpreting anything...that is you. And don't you think that if the second law meant something else, it would say something else?

And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.

What is so weird about that? Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?

 

[MaryL]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

The earth isn't flat, and the moon landing wasn't faked because observable mathematics and science. Same stuff that gave you electronics, printed circuits, micro circuitry and ultimately the internet you are posting on right now. But maybe that's all imaginary, too? Because the same science that made computers real, made planes fly, says all this warming is man made? I believe them. The same people that put a man on the moon guys actually back up what I see with my own eyes...wow, it's amazing.

 

[SSDD]

I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...

Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
One of your earliest epicycles.

You made the claim...lets see the quote...

Here is a conversation where you say radiation from cold matter is restricted from hitting warmer matter

You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.

Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

Again...I am not interpreting anything...that is you. And don't you think that if the second law meant something else, it would say something else?

And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.

What is so weird about that? Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?

More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said? The tedium never stops...

 

[SSDD]

`

The earth isn't flat, and the moon landing wasn't faked because observable mathematics and science. Same stuff that gave you electronics, printed circuits, micro circuitry and ultimately the internet you are posting on right now. But maybe that's all imaginary, too? Because the same science that made computers real, made planes fly, says all this warming is man made? I believe them. The same people that put a man on the moon guys actually back up what I see with my own eyes...wow, it's amazing.[/QUOTE]

And yet, neither you, nor all of climate science can produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is in any way different from natural variability...

Abject lack of evidence....and yet you still believe...now that is amazing....amazing that a person can be so thoroughly duped...

 

[Wuwei]

More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said? The tedium never stops...

Reread it. If that is too hard to understand, try this link:

No Evidence
Post #888: You said,

"the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict."​

You are wrong. That is not what science predicts.

 

[SSDD]

More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said? The tedium never stops...

Reread it. If that is too hard to understand, try this link:

No Evidence
Post #888: You said,

"the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict."​

You are wrong. That is not what science predicts.

Of course it is...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement predicts spontaneous two way energy flow? How much interpreting, twisting, and mental masturbation do you have to do to get a prediction of spontaneous two way energy flow out of that statement?

The tedium never ends with you....does it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said? The tedium never stops...

Reread it. If that is too hard to understand, try this link:

No Evidence
Post #888: You said,

"the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict."​

You are wrong. That is not what science predicts.

Of course it is...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement predicts spontaneous two way energy flow? How much interpreting, twisting, and mental masturbation do you have to do to get a prediction of spontaneous two way energy flow out of that statement?

The tedium never ends with you....does it?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You'll notice it doesn't say radiation. Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it is...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement predicts spontaneous two way energy flow? How much interpreting, twisting, and mental masturbation do you have to do to get a prediction of spontaneous two way energy flow out of that statement?

The tedium never ends with you....does it?

Your turning and twisting to thermodynamics doesn't make your point. The 2nd law makes no predictions about radiation exchange. It only puts constraints on radiation exchange.

It is quantum mechanics that makes predictions about radiation exchange. And the prediction is that radiation is exchanged between objects at any temperatures. If that were not the case, many of observed, measured, and tested physical laws would be violated.


.

 

[jc456]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

His original claim was,
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".
Every idiotic claim he's made since then just piles more idiocy onto the original idiotic claim.

except you can't prove back radiation exists. now that's funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

His original claim was,
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".
Every idiotic claim he's made since then just piles more idiocy onto the original idiotic claim.

except you can't prove back radiation exists. now that's funny.

except you can't prove back radiation exists.

You can't even define back radiation.

 

[jc456]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

His original claim was,
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".
Every idiotic claim he's made since then just piles more idiocy onto the original idiotic claim.

except you can't prove back radiation exists. now that's funny.

except you can't prove back radiation exists.

You can't even define back radiation.

you are exactly right. cause it doesn't exist.